California Proposition 24, Consumer Personal Information Law and Agency Initiative (2020)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
California Proposition 24
Flag of California.png
Election date
November 3, 2020
Topic
Business regulation
Status
Approveda Approved
Type
State statute		Origin
Citizens

California Proposition 24, the Consumer Personal Information Law and Agency Initiative, was on the ballot in California as an initiated state statute on November 3, 2020. Proposition 24 was approved.

A "yes" vote supported this ballot initiative to expand the state’s consumer data privacy laws, including provisions to allow consumers to direct businesses to not share their personal information; remove the time period in which businesses can fix violations before being penalized; and create the Privacy Protection Agency to enforce the state’s consumer data privacy laws.

A "no" vote opposed this ballot initiative to expand the state’s consumer data privacy laws or create the Privacy Protection Agency to enforce the state’s consumer data privacy laws.


Election results

California Proposition 24

Result Votes Percentage

Approved Yes

9,384,625 56.23%
No 7,305,431 43.77%
Results are officially certified.
Source


Overview

What did this ballot initiative change about the CCPA?

See also: Design of Proposition 24

Proposition 24, also known as the California Privacy Rights and Enforcement Act of 2020, expanded and amended the provisions of the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA), created the California Privacy Protection Agency, and removed the ability of businesses to fix violations before being penalized for violations. The ballot initiative required businesses to do the following:[1]

  • not share a consumer's personal information upon the consumer's request;
  • provide consumers with an opt-out option for having their sensitive personal information, as defined in law, used or disclosed for advertising or marketing;
  • obtain permission before collecting data from consumers who are younger than 16;
  • obtain permission from a parent or guardian before collecting data from consumers who are younger than 13; and
  • correct a consumer's inaccurate personal information upon the consumer's request.

How is the campaign connected to the CCPA legislation?

See also: Background

Alastair Mactaggart, a San Francisco-based real estate developer, filed this ballot initiative. He was the proponent of a ballot initiative that qualified for the ballot in 2018 but was withdrawn after negotiations with the California State Legislature, which passed a revised version of the initiative called the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA). Mactaggart contributed $3 million to the initiative's campaign, which spent $1.63 million to collect signatures ($4.46 per required signature).

With Proposition 24, Mactaggart said his intention "is to go to the ballot."[2] He described the CCPA of 2018 as a "great baseline. But I think there are additional rights that Californians deserve."[3] Unlike the CCPA, which the legislature passed, the ballot initiative couldn't be amended without the approval of voters at the ballot box due to the state constitution's limits on legislative alteration. "The only thing I want to make sure is they can’t undo the act," said Mactaggart, "There is basically unlimited resources on one side of the fight. If you don’t do anything, they will win eventually."[4]

Sen. Bob Hertzberg (D-18) was involved in the negotiations with Mactaggart that resulted in the CCPA of 2018. Sen. Hertzberg said that "[t]here is no reason to negotiate" this time, adding, "What [Mactaggart] is doing is the right thing."[5] Mary Stone Ross, who worked with Mactaggart on the CCPA in 2018, opposed Proposition 24. She stated, "I firmly believe we wouldn’t have the CCPA had it not been for the ballot initiative process, but I think that now it’s gone too far."[6]

Measure design

Click on the arrows (▼) below for summaries of the different provisions of California Proposition 24.


Businesses: Compliance with Proposition 24

Proposition 24 defined which businesses are required to follow the law's requirements regarding consumer data. The following table compares the types of businesses that were required to follow the consumer data laws under the existing CCPA of 2018 and Proposition 24:[1]

CCPA (2018) Proposition 24 (2020)
  • Businesses that earn $25 million in annual revenue.
  • Businesses that purchase, sell, or share the personal information of 50,000 or more consumers, households, or devices each year.
  • Businesses that earn 50 percent or more of their annual revenue from selling consumers' personal information.
  • Businesses that earn $25 million in annual revenue.
  • Businesses that control the purchase, sell, or share the personal information of 100,000 or more consumers or households each year.
  • Businesses that earn 50 percent or more of their annual revenue from selling or sharing consumers' personal information.

Under the CCPA of 2018 and Proposition 24, businesses were exempt from requirements when complying with federal, state, or local laws and subpoena. Proposition 24 allowed police and sheriff's departments with an active investigation to direct businesses to not delete personal information for 90 to 180 days in order to give the investigation time to obtain a court-issued warrant, subpoena, or order. Proposition 24 also allowed personal information to be shared with the government if a natural person is at risk or danger of death or serious physical injury, providing that the government's request was made by a high-ranking agency officer for emergency access, the government's request is based on the agency's good faith determination, and the requesting agency agrees to petition a court for an appropriate order within three days and to destroy the information if that order is not granted.[1]

Consumers: Rules governing consumer-business interactions

Proposition 24 provided consumers with additional abilities regarding how businesses interact with their consumer data. Proposition 24 required businesses to do the following:[1]

  • not share or sell a consumer's personal information to third parties upon the consumer's request;
  • disclose whether the business collects sensitive personal information, the types of sensitive personal information collected, the purpose for which the sensitive personal information would be collected, and the length of time that the business intends to retain the sensitive personal information;
  • provide consumers with an opt-out option for having their sensitive personal information used or disclosed for advertising or marketing;
  • obtain permission before collecting data from consumers who are younger than 16;
  • obtain permission from a parent or guardian before collecting data from consumers who are younger than 13; and
  • correct a consumer's inaccurate personal information upon the consumer's request

The requirements listed above were in addition to the requirements under the CCPA of 2018, which require businesses to:[1]

  • disclose to the consumer the personal information that has been collected about the consumer and the commercial purpose of the information collected upon the consumer's request
  • not sell a consumer's personal information to third parties upon the consumer's request.
  • delete the consumer’s personal information upon the consumer's request; and

Proposition 24 defined sensitive personal information as personal Information that reveals a consumer's social security, driver's license, state identification card, or passport number; a consumer's account log-in, financial account, debit card number, or credit card number in combination with any required codes, passwords, or credentials allowing access to an account; a consumer's precise geolocation; a consumer's racial or ethnic origin, religious or philosophical beliefs, or union membership; the contents of a consumer's mall, email and text messages (unless the business in the intended recipient of the communication); a consumer's genetic data; a consumer's biometric information (for the purpose of identifying the consumer); information concerning the consumer's health; and information concerning a consumer's sex life or sexual orientation.[1]

Exemptions: Exemptions for types of information for certain purposes

Proposition 24 exempted some types of information used for certain purposes from the consumer data requirements, including:[1]

  • vehicle information or vehicle ownership information retained or shared between vehicle dealers and manufacturers for the purpose of vehicle repairs;
  • a consumer’s credit standing, reputation, and worthiness for the purpose of consumer reports;
  • personal information collected by a business for a job application and used within the context of the consumer's role as a job applicant, employee, or independent contractor;
  • emergency contact information collected by a business and used within the context of having the information on file for emergency contact purposes;
  • personal information collected by a business that is needed to administer employment benefits;
  • personal information reflecting a written or verbal communication or a transaction between a business and an employee, owner, or independent contractor; and
  • a student's grades, educational scores, or educational test results held on behalf of a local education agency.

Proposition 24 stated that the consumer data requirements cannot restrict a business's ability to comply with federal, state, and local laws; civil, criminal, or regulatory investigations and summons; and court orders and subpoenas. Proposition 24 also allowed local law enforcement agencies to direct a business to hold onto personal information for 90 days in order for the law enforcement agency to acquire a court-ordered subpoena, order, or warrant. An additional 90 days (for 180 days total) could be 

granted with good cause and for investigatory purposes. The ballot initiative allowed government agencies to request that businesses not delete data if: the purpose of the request is to protect a natural person from the risk or danger of death or serious physical injury; the request is made by a high-ranking officer; the request is based on the agency's good faith determination; and the agency agrees to petition a court for an appropriate order within three days and to destroy the information if the order is not granted.[1]

Penalties: Penalties for violations of consumer data laws

The CCPA of 2018 gave businesses 30 days to address and fix violations and data breaches before being fined. Proposition 24 eliminated the notice period of 30 days for violations. Proposition 24 adopted the following penalties for violations and data breaches:[1]

  • up to $2,500 for each violation
  • up to $7,500 for each violation involving the information of a person under the age of 16
  • up to $750 per consumer per data breach incident or actual damages, whichever is greater

Proceeds from fines and related settlements were to be deposited into a Consumer Privacy Fund, which would be used to offset costs to courts, the attorney general, and the California Privacy Protection Agency that were associated with enforcing the consumer data law.[1]

Agency: Establishment of the California Privacy Protection Agency

Proposition 24 established the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA), which had the administrative power, authority, and jurisdiction to implement and enforce the consumer data law. Examples of the CCPA's duties included investigating and adjudicating potential violations, assessing penalties for violations, developing regulations, providing guidance to businesses and consumers, monitoring developments related to the protection of personal information, and promoting public awareness on consumer's rights in relation to personal information data.[1]

The CPPA was to be governed by a five-member board, with the chair appointed by the governor. The remaining four members were to be appointed by the governor, attorney general, Senate Rules Committee, and speaker of the assembly. Board members were to be required to have qualifications, expertise, and experience in privacy and technology. Proposition 24 required the legislature to appropriate $10 million to the CPPA during each fiscal year.[1]

Under the CCPA of 2018, the California Department of Justice oversaw the implementation and enforcement of the consumer data law.[1]

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title was as follows:[7]

“

Amends Consumer Privacy Laws. Initiative Statute.[8]

”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary was as follows:[7]

“
  • Permits consumers to: (1) prevent businesses from sharing personal information; (2) correct inaccurate personal information; and (3) limit businesses’ use of “sensitive personal information”—including precise geolocation; race; ethnicity; religion; genetic data; private communications; sexual orientation; and specified health information.
  • Establishes California Privacy Protection Agency to additionally enforce and implement consumer privacy laws and impose fines.
  • Changes criteria for which businesses must comply with laws.
  • Prohibits businesses’ retention of personal information for longer than reasonably necessary.
  • Triples maximum penalties for violations concerning consumers under age 16.
  • Authorizes civil penalties for theft of consumer login information, as specified.[8]
 ”

Fiscal impact

The fiscal impact statement was as follows:[7]

“
  • Increased state costs of at least $10 million annually for a new state agency to oversee and enforce consumer privacy laws.
  • Increased state costs, not likely to exceed the low millions of dollars annually, for increased court and Department of Justice enforcement workload. Some or all of these costs would be paid by penalties collected for violations of consumer privacy laws.
  • Unknown impact on state and local tax revenues due to economic effects resulting from new requirements on businesses to protect consumer data.[8]
 ”

Full text

The full text of the ballot initiative is as follows:[1]

Readability score

See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2020
Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas, Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title and summary for this measure. Readability scores are designed to indicate the reading difficulty of text. The Flesch-Kincaid formulas account for the number of words, syllables, and sentences in a text; they do not account for the difficulty of the ideas in the text. The attorney general wrote the ballot language for this measure.


The FKGL for the ballot title is grade level 15, and the FRE is -8. The word count for the ballot title is 6, and the estimated reading time is 1 second. The FKGL for the ballot summary is grade level 16, and the FRE is -9. The word count for the ballot summary is 93, and the estimated reading time is 24 seconds.


Support

California Yes on 24 2020.png

Californians for Consumer Privacy, also known as Yes on 24, led the campaign in support of the ballot initiative. Alastair Mactaggart, a real estate developer and investor based in San Francisco, was chairperson of the campaign.[9]

Supporters

Yes on 24 provided a list of supporters on its website, which is available here.

Officials

Unions

  • AFSCME California
  • California Professional Firefighters
  • State Building and Construction Trades Council of California

Organizations

  • California NAACP State Conference
  • Common Sense
  • Consumer Watchdog

Individuals


Arguments

  • Alastair Mactaggart: "We’ve come a long way in the two years since passing the landmark California Consumer Privacy Act, but during these times of unprecedented uncertainty, we need to ensure that the laws keep pace with the ever-changing ways corporations and other entities are using our data. That’s why our campaign is going to make sure all Californians know about the new and stronger rights provided under this ballot measure, the California Privacy Rights Act, and why we need their support in November."
  • Alastair Mactaggart: "Sensible companies realize this regulation is coming. This is not a burn-down-the-whole-world law. This is not a law that, you know, puts anybody out of business."
  • Alastair Mactaggart: "Especially post-COVID, people are going to be more sensitive to privacy concerns. I feel strongly — and polling shows — that Californians want more control over their information."
  • Carmen Balber, executive director of Consumer Watchdog: "Under Prop 24, a consumer can limit the use of their sensitive information to stop Uber from profiling them based on race, stop Spotify from utilizing their precise geo-location and prevent Facebook from using their sexual orientation, health status or religion in its algorithms. In addition, Californians won’t have to worry about the legislature repealing key privacy rights, will have stronger rights to personally enforce privacy laws and will have the protection of a well-staffed and funded European-style privacy commission to protect their rights."
  • Michael Hiltzik, a Los Angeles Times columnist: “Make no mistake: If Proposition 24 is defeated, the beneficiaries would be businesses that want to exploit your privacy without your consent.”
  • Shoshana Zuboff, author of the book The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: "Prop 24, the California Privacy Rights Act, builds on and strengthens the 2018 California Consumer Privacy Act. If passed, the law will give Californians among the best privacy protections in the world, and it includes provisions for its continuous strengthening against the relentless assaults of tech lobbyists. Prop 24 is necessary not because it is the last word, but because it is the right word today, ensuring that we continue to forge the path to a democratic digital future."
  • Andrew Yang, a former presidential candidate: "Other proposals simply do not match the strength and thoughtfulness of Prop. 24. Alternatives would require all online businesses to offer their services for “free,” even if the business doesn’t have any alternative model to create revenue. This is unsustainable. As we’ve seen for years, if a service is free, the user is the product. Requiring this type of digital system would further marginalize privacy and data rights and make it nearly impossible to provide consumers with meaningful control over their information. ... But most importantly, Prop. 24 provides Californians greater control over their data: If they don’t like a business or don’t trust its privacy protections, consumers can tell it that it can’t sell their personal information, and businesses are prohibited from unfairly punishing consumers for exercising these rights. This is a strong new protection, and puts control where it belongs: with the consumer."


Official arguments

The following is the argument in support of Proposition 24 found in the Official Voter Information Guide:[10]

  • Official Voter Information Guide: The world's biggest corporations are collecting deeply personal and private information about all of us. Sadly, our current laws aren’t strong enough to protect us or our families from those who would abuse our most personal information. In 2018, the Legislature enacted the California Consumer Privacy Act. But since then, industry has repeatedly tried to weaken and limit enforcement of this law. Consumers need stronger protections. That's why we've introduced the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020, to strengthen current privacy laws. In addition to monitoring our kids, many corporations track us constantly, from gym to office to clinic; they know our friends, jobs, weight, where we eat and how fast we're driving, our private searches and what we look at online. They also track and sell sensitive information like our race, sexual orientation, and religion. We believe we should be in control of our own information, and have the right to stop the use of our most sensitive personal information. OUR PERSONAL INFORMATION—AND OUR CHILDREN'S—IS BEING ABUSED: Giant corporations make billions buying and selling our personal information—apps, phones, and cars sell your location constantly. The California Privacy Rights Act gives you the power to stop businesses tracking you precisely, like selling how many times you go to the gym or fast food restaurants to health insurers—without your knowledge or permission. Worse, these corporations don't keep your information safe. In 2018, there were a whopping 1,244,000,000 data breaches in the U.S., with over 446,000,000 records exposed, leading to massive identity theft. This measure holds big businesses accountable by imposing huge fines if they're negligent and don't keep your or your kids' health information, or Social Security numbers safe. THE CALIFORNIA PRIVACY RIGHTS ACT WOULD: 1. PROTECT YOUR MOST PERSONAL INFORMATION, by allowing you to prevent businesses from using or sharing sensitive information about your health, finances, race, ethnicity, and precise location; 2. Safeguard young people, TRIPLING FINES for violations involving children’s information; 3. Put new limits on companies' collection and use of our personal information; 4. Establish an enforcement arm—the California Privacy Protection Agency—to defend these rights and hold companies accountable, and extend enforcement including IMPOSING PENALTIES FOR NEGLIGENCE resulting in theft of consumers' emails and passwords. 5. MAKE IT MUCH HARDER TO WEAKEN PRIVACY in California in the future, by preventing special interests and politicians from undermining Californians' privacy rights, while allowing the Legislature to amend the law to further the primary goal of strengthening consumer privacy to better protect you and your children, such as opt-in for use of data, further protections for uniquely vulnerable minors, and greater power for individuals to hold violators accountable. VOTE YES ON PROP. 24 TO SUPPORT THE CALIFORNIA PRIVACY RIGHTS ACT: California led the nation in enacting privacy rights, but big corporations are spending millions lobbying to weaken our laws. Instead, we need to make California privacy laws stronger. We need to safeguard our privacy protections, and hold corporations accountable when they violate our fundamental rights. For more information, visit: www.caprivacy.org. Please join us and VOTE YES ON PROP. 24. JAMES P. STEYER, CEO Common Sense Media ALICE A. HUFFMAN, President California NAACP CELINE MACTAGGART, Director Californians for Consumer Privacy

Opposition

California No on Prop 24 2020.png

California Consumer and Privacy Advocates Against Prop 24, also known as No on Prop 24, led the campaign in opposition to the ballot initiative.[11]

Opponents

No on Prop 24 provided a list of opponents on its webpage, which is available here.

Political Parties

Unions

  • California Nurses Association

Organizations

  • ACLU of California
  • ACLU of Northern California
  • ACLU of Southern California
  • California Alliance for Retired Americans
  • California Small Business Association
  • Center for Digital Democracy
  • Color of Change
  • Consumer Action
  • Consumer Federation of California
  • Council on Islamic American Relations - California
  • League of Women Voters of California
  • Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce
  • Media Alliance

Individuals

  • Dolores Huerta - Co-Founder of the United Farm Workers


Arguments

  • Richard Holober, president of the Consumer Federation of California: "No one reads the thousands of words of legal fine print that you have to "Accept" before you can use an app or visit a website. The fine print is where you sacrifice your privacy. The same is true of Proposition 24. Its 52 pages are full of privacy reductions and giveaways to Facebook, social media platforms and big tech companies that misuse our personal information."
  • Linda Sherry, Director of National Priorities at Consumer Action: "Besides sowing confusion among voters, the initiative could reduce privacy rights that Californians gained under a recently enacted law. It appears that Prop 24 would allow businesses to create new 'pay for privacy' schemes. Tech companies could downgrade service to those who cannot or will not pay an extra fee. This is unfair to low-income consumers, seniors and people of color who are already struggling to afford essential high-speed internet connections while enduring a pandemic and massive unemployment. We fear Prop 24 would undermine existing California privacy regulations by making it more burdensome for consumers to prohibit Big Tech companies from selling their confidential data."
  • Khaim Morton, a former vice president of the Sacramento Metro Chamber: "Prop. 24 fails us in two key ways: First, Prop. 24 creates a loophole that allows commercial credit agencies and data corporations to sell the personal information of small-business owners. Creating the loophole weakens the privacy of small-business owners and hurts our Black, Latino and Asian-American small businesses the most. And California leads the nation in minority-owned small businesses. Second, Prop 24 allows the continued use of “neighborhood scores” and fails to address “digital redlining,” a practice whereby lenders use a person’s race or the racial make-up of a neighborhood as a rationale for either refusing to lend to its residents or charging much higher interest rates. Historically, redlining stifled the ability of Black families to get ahead by either denying them access to home ownership or charging them significantly higher finance fees."
  • Tracy Rosenberg, executive director of the Media Alliance: "Proposition 24 asks you to vote for what is in effect a privacy poll tax."
  • League of Women Voters of California: "Pay for Privacy. Prop 24 expands the ability, which already exists in the CCPA, for businesses to provide inferior service for consumers who don’t pay to protect their confidential information, and superior service for Californians who do pay. Under current law a charge is allowed if it’s reasonably related to the value provided to the business by the consumer’s data. Prop 24 expands current law by exempting loyalty clubs and rewards programs from existing limits and allows businesses to withhold discounts unless they can harvest data about shopping habits."


Official arguments

The following is the argument in opposition to Proposition 24 found in the Official Voter Information Guide:[12]

  • Official Voter Information Guide: Vote NO on Proposition 24 because it was written behind closed doors with input from giant tech corporations that collect and misuse our personal information—while the measure's sponsor rejected almost every suggestion from 11 privacy and consumer rights groups. Proposition 24 reduces privacy protections by severely weakening your rights under current California law. Make no mistake—the privacy of every Californian is at stake! The real winners with Proposition 24 are the biggest social media platforms, giant tech companies and credit reporting corporations who get more freedom to invade the privacy of workers and consumers, and to continue sharing your credit data. Here's what they won't tell you about the 52 pages of fine print: Proposition 24 asks you to approve an Internet "pay for privacy" scheme. Those who don't pay more could get inferior service—bad connections, slower downloads and more pop up ads. It's an electronic version of freeway express lanes for the wealthy and traffic jams for everyone else. Currently, employers can obtain all kinds of personal information about their workers and even job applicants, including things like using a pregnancy tracking app, where you go to worship or if you attend a political protest. Proposition 24 allows employers to continue secretly gathering this information for more years to come, overriding a new law that lets workers know what sensitive private information their bosses have beginning January 1, 2021. Under California law, your privacy rights follow you wherever you go. But with Proposition 24, the minute you travel out of state with a phone, wearable device, or computer, big tech companies are allowed to capture the health, financial, and other confidential information you stored on your device. You can set web browsers and cell phones to send a signal to each website you visit and app you use to stop selling your personal data, so you don't have to think about it each time. Proposition 24 would allow companies to disregard those instructions and shift the burden to you to notify each and every website and app individually to protect your data. Proposition 24's new enforcement agency sounds good, but when tech corporations get caught violating your privacy, all they have to do is cooperate with the agency and their only penalty could be a slap on the wrist. California's new privacy law just took effect this year. Smaller businesses spent a lot of money to comply with the new regulations. Before we even know how this new law is working, Proposition 24 rewrites it, forcing smaller businesses to absorb even more costs at a time that the economic slowdown has many businesses on the verge of closing their doors. Proposition 24 was written to accommodate big social media platforms and the Internet and technology companies that spend tens of millions of dollars a year to lobby government at all levels to avoid laws that hurt their profits. Proposition 24 is a bonanza for them—and a big step back for consumer privacy. Please Vote NO on Proposition 24. www.CaliforniansForRealPrivacy.org TRACY ROSENBERG, President Californians for Privacy Now RICHARD HOLOBER, President Consumer Federation of California DOLORES HUERTA, Labor and Civil Rights Leader

Other positions

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) issued a statement taking no position on Proposition 24—"EFF does not support it; nor does EFF oppose it." EFF described Proposition 24 as "a mixed bag of partial steps backwards and forwards."[13]

Campaign finance

See also: Campaign finance requirements for California ballot measures

The Californians for Consumer Privacy PAC was registered to support the ballot initiative. The committee had raised $6.55 million. Alastair Mactaggart was the top contributor to the PAC, providing $6.50 million.[14]

Two PACs—California Consumer and Privacy Advocates Against Prop 24 and Californians for Real Privacy—were registered to oppose the ballot initiative. The committees reported $34,440 in contributions.[14]

Cash Contributions In-Kind Contributions Total Contributions Cash Expenditures Total Expenditures
Support $1,937,770.00 $4,614,362.03 $6,552,132.03 $1,919,940.06 $6,534,302.09
Oppose $26,570.54 $7,869.70 $34,440.24 $166,419.32 $174,289.02

Support

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in support of the ballot initiative.[14]

Committees in support of Proposition 24
Committee Cash Contributions In-Kind Contributions Total Contributions Cash Expenditures Total Expenditures
Yes on 24, Californians for Consumer Privacy $1,937,770.00 $4,614,362.03 $6,552,132.03 $1,919,940.06 $6,534,302.09
Total $1,937,770.00 $4,614,362.03 $6,552,132.03 $1,919,940.06 $6,534,302.09

Donors

The following was the top donor to the support committee.[14]

Donor Cash Contributions In-Kind Contributions Total Contributions
Alastair Mactaggart $1,905,000.00 $4,596,162.03 $6,501,162.03
Bill Dodd Ballot Measure Committee for Progress, Reform & a Stronger California $20,000.00 $0.00 $20,000.00

Opposition

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in opposition to the ballot initiative.[14]

Committees in opposition to Proposition 24
Committee Cash Contributions In-Kind Contributions Total Contributions Cash Expenditures Total Expenditures
California Consumer and Privacy Advocates Against Prop 24 $20,090.00 $233.70 $20,323.70 $159,938.78 $160,172.48
Californians for Real Privacy - No on Proposition 24 $6,480.54 $7,636.00 $14,116.54 $6,480.54 $14,116.54
Total $26,570.54 $7,869.70 $34,440.24 $166,419.32 $174,289.02

Donors

The following were the top donors to the opposition committee.s[14]

Donor Cash Contributions In-Kind Contributions Total Contributions
California Nurses Association Initiative Political Action Committee $20,000.00 $0.00 $20,000.00
Consumer Federation of California $6,480.54 $4,502.00 $10,982.54

Media editorials

Ballotpedia identified the following media editorial boards as taking positions on the ballot initiative. If you are aware of a media editorial board position that is not listed below, please email the editorial link to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Support

  • Los Angeles Times Editorial Board: "We could sink deeply into the history and the behind-the-scenes drama, but in the end, the questions for voters are whether Proposition 24 would make privacy protections stronger, whether it goes far enough to make a meaningful difference, and whether it would enable the state to provide even better protections in the future. The answer to all three is yes. Although California’s current privacy law is the strongest in the country, it has many shortcomings. Its limits apply only to the sale of data, so some sites have circumvented them by claiming they’re not selling personal information, they’re merely sharing it with partners. That’s one of several glaring loopholes that big, data-hoovering sites and platforms such as Google, Facebook and Spotify have exploited."
  • The Sacramento Bee Editorial Board: "Opponents of the measure claim it will weaken the CCPA, but we don’t buy it. Mactaggart is clearly dedicating his time and money to strengthening California’s privacy laws. Why he would push a strong law through the Legislature and then seek to undo it two years later? ... Digital privacy is a complex issue. Prop. 24 won’t be the last word. We encourage all skeptical voters to review the ballot arguments carefully before deciding. But Prop. 24 is a step forward for digital privacy protections. The Sacramento Bee Editorial Board recommends a yes vote on Prop. 24."


Opposition

  • Mercury News & East Bay Times Editorial Boards: "It’s simply the wrong way to try to go about settling an immensely complex issue. Vote no on Proposition 24. ... Voters should reject Prop. 24. Let’s wait and see how effective the state’s new online law works. If it needs change, give the Legislature a chance to fix any flaws before taking another ballot measure to the people."
  • SCNG Editorial Board (Orange County Register and Press-Enterprise): "The last thing California needs is another state regulatory agency that burdens businesses, especially now, as they adapt to an increasingly online model. ... That won’t bother the tech giants or other large companies, such as banks and insurers. But for small and midsize companies, the legal bills associated with regulatory compliance for every technological upgrade would be strangling. Invention could turn into stagnation. The creative energy that has rushed new products and services into the hands of consumers would be chilled. Never again will tech giants be threatened by a start-up company in somebody’s garage."
  • The Press Democrat Editorial Board: "Online privacy is a new frontier for individuals and businesses alike. We think Mactaggart was wise to pursue protections through the legislative process, which has opportunities for all interested parties to give input. If the law proves inadequate, it makes sense to return to the Legislature to seek changes before asking voters to sort out something so arcane that it even divides the experts. The Press Democrat recommends a no vote on Proposition 24."
  • San Mateo Daily Journal Editorial Board: "This should be done at the legislative level."
  • San Francisco Chronicle Editorial Board: "If the decision on Prop. 24 were merely about the concept — stopping companies from collecting and exploiting personal information about us without our permission or often without our knowledge — it would be an easy call. But this is a complex, legalistic 52-page initiative crafted behind the scenes, including participation of the companies that are the supposed targets of regulation. It should be evaluated on its details, not merely its good intentions. ... And here is one more thing for voters to consider: If Prop. 24 really were as restrictive and airtight as advertised, is there any doubt that those who are exploiting our personal information as a commodity would be pouring tens of millions into defeating it? Their silence is telling."
  • The Bakersfield Californian Editorial Board: "Prop. 24 allows the Legislature to make changes to its requirements with a simple majority vote, but only “to improve its operation, provided that the amendments do not compromise or weaken consumer privacy, while giving attention to the impact on business and innovation.” Huh? What does that even mean? Talk about vague. California now has one of the toughest privacy laws in the nation. Let’s give it a chance to show what it can do. Prop. 24 is not needed. Vote No."
  • The Desert Sun Editorial Board: "Businesses have only just begun trying to coordinate their practices with the Legislature’s CCPA. Throwing a new, dense measure at them, with the real possibility of further changes by a new bureaucracy, is harshly unfair. We should give that law the chance to work and be tweaked, as potentially needed, before shifting gears so abruptly. Vote "no" on Proposition 24."
  • San Diego Union-Tribune Editorial Board: "We are open to strengthening online privacy, but the lack of support from groups that should back this — from the Electronic Frontier Foundation to the ACLU to the Consumer Federation of California — gives us great pause. We recommend a no vote on Proposition 24."


Background

Constitutional right to privacy

See also: California Declaration of Rights

The California Declaration of Rights (Article I of the California Constitution) provides for inalienable rights, including a right to pursue and obtain "safety, happiness, and privacy."[15]

The California Constitution, as ratified in 1879, included a right to pursue and obtain safety and happiness but did not include the phrase privacy.[16] In 1972, a citizen-initiated measure, titled Proposition 11, to add a right to pursue and obtain privacy was approved. The phrase "safety, happiness, and privacy" was re-adopted in 1974, when voters approved a ballot measure revising the Declaration of Rights.

California Consumer Privacy Act Initiative

See also: California Consumer Personal Information Disclosure and Sale Initiative (2018)

In 2018, the campaign Californians for Consumer Privacy was organized to support a ballot initiative known as the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). Alastair Mactaggart was chairperson of the campaign, and Mary Ross, a former CIA analyst and legal counsel for the U.S. House Intelligence Committee, was president of the campaign. The campaign raised $3.05 million, with $3.00 million from Mactaggart.[14] While the ballot initiative qualified to appear at the election on November 6, 2019, Californians for Consumer Privacy withdrew the proposal on June 28, 2018, after Gov. Jerry Brown (D) signed compromise legislation.[17]

Opponents of the CCPA ballot initiative organized the Committee to Protect California Jobs, which raised $2.15 million. Opponents included several electronic, telecommunications, and vehicle companies, including Amazon, Facebook, Google, and Microsoft.[14]

California Consumer Privacy Act (AB 375)

On June 28, 2018, California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) signed the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), which resulted from a compromise with Californians for Consumer Privacy. In the California State Legislature, the CCPA was Assembly Bill 375 (AB 375). The California State Assembly and California State Senate passed the CCPA in unanimous votes.[17]

The CCPA was designed to require companies that store personal information to disclose to consumers what types of information are collected and how the information is used. Under the CCPA, consumers were allowed to:[17]

  • request that a business disclose to the consumer the personal information that has been collected about the consumer and the commercial purpose of the information collected;
  • request that a business delete the consumer’s personal information;
  • request that a business not sell the consumer's personal information to third parties;

The CCPA defined personal information to include identifiers, such as names, addresses, government identification numbers, and email addresses; financial information; medical information; health insurance information; commercial information; biometric information; characteristics of protected classes; internet and electronic network information; geolocation data; audio, visual, electronic, and similar information; employment-related information; education information; and inferences drawn from personal information to create consumer profiles reflecting "the consumer’s preferences, characteristics, psychological trends, preferences, predispositions, behavior, attitudes, intelligence, abilities, and aptitudes."

AB 375 applied the requirements to businesses that (a) earn more than $25 million in annual revenue, (b) purchase, sell, or share the personal information of 50,000 consumers or devices per year, or (c) earn 50 percent or more of their annual revenue from selling consumers' personal information.[17]

One of the differences between the citizen-initiated CCPA and the legislative CCPA (AB 375) regarded how businesses can treat or interact with consumers who requested that their information not be sold. AB 375 allowed companies to offer services or rates based on the information that consumers provided, whereas the ballot initiative would have required businesses to treat consumers the same no matter the information shared.[17]

AB 375 gave businesses 30 days to address and fix violations before being fined, whereas the ballot initiative would not have given businesses a period to fix violations before being fined.[17]

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in California

Process in California

In California, the number of signatures required for an initiated state statute is equal to 5 percent of the votes cast in the preceding gubernatorial election. Petitions are allowed to circulate for 180 days from the date the attorney general prepares the petition language. Signatures need to be certified at least 131 days before the general election. As the verification process can take multiple months, the secretary of state provides suggested deadlines for ballot initiatives.

The requirements to get initiated state statutes certified for the 2020 ballot:

  • Signatures: 623,212 valid signatures were required.
  • Deadline: The deadline for signature verification was June 25, 2020. However, the process of verifying signatures can take multiple months. The recommended deadlines were March 3, 2020, for an initiative requiring a full check of signatures and April 21, 2020, for an initiative requiring a random sample of signatures.

Signatures are first filed with local election officials, who determine the total number of signatures submitted. If the total number is equal to at least 100 percent of the required signatures, then local election officials perform a random check of signatures submitted in their counties. If the random sample estimates that more than 110 percent of the required number of signatures are valid, the initiative is eligible for the ballot. If the random sample estimates that between 95 and 110 percent of the required number of signatures are valid, a full check of signatures is done to determine the total number of valid signatures. If less than 95 percent are estimated to be valid, the initiative does not make the ballot.

Stages of this initiative

On October 9, 2019, Alastair Mactaggart filed the ballot initiative.[1] Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D) released ballot language for the initiative on December 17, 2019, which allowed proponents to begin collecting signatures. The deadline to file signatures was June 15, 2020.

On February 13, 2020, proponents announced that the number of collected signatures surpassed the 25-percent threshold (155,803 signatures) to require legislative hearings on the ballot initiative.[18] In 2014, Senate Bill 1253 was enacted into law, which required the legislature to assign ballot initiatives that meet the 25-percent threshold to committees to hold joint public hearings on the initiatives not later than 131 days before the election.

On May 4, 2020, the campaign submitted 930,983 signatures for the ballot initiative.[19] At least 623,212 (66.94 percent) of the signatures need to be valid. The recommended deadline to file signatures for the election on November 3, 2020, was April 21, 2020. Counties needed to validate the signatures before June 25, 2020, for the ballot initiative to appear on the ballot in 2020.

The original random sample deadline for the ballot initiative was June 26, 2020, which would have been one day after the deadline to make the ballot for 2020. On June 9, 2020, the campaign sued Secretary of State Alex Padilla (D) in the Sacramento County Superior Court. The campaign asked the court for an order to require counties to complete the random sample of signatures by June 25. According to the campaign, Padilla could have ordered counties to begin a random sample on May 13 but instead waited until May 14. The lawsuit stated, "That one-day delay, for which the Secretary of State's office had no authority, may prove fatal to the people's right to vote on this initiative."[20] On June 19, Judge Shelleyanne W. L. Chang granted the campaign's request, ordering counties to finish their random samples by June 25.[21]

On June 24, 2020, the office of Secretary of State Padilla announced that the random sample projected that 77.54 percent of the submitted signatures were valid. Therefore, the ballot initiative qualified to appear on the ballot at the general election.[22]

Cost of signature collection:
Sponsors of the measure hired Alastair Mactaggart (In-Kind) to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $4,365,296.75 was spent to collect the 623,212 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $7.00.

See also

How to cast a vote

See also: Voting in California

Click "Show" to learn more about voter registration, identification requirements, and poll times in California.

External links

Information

Support

Opposition

Footnotes

  1. ↑ 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.10 1.11 1.12 1.13 1.14 California Attorney General, "Initiative 19-0021," November 4, 2019
  2. ↑ Washington Post, "Privacy activist in California launches new ballot initiative for 2020 election," September 24, 2019
  3. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Proposed 2020 ballot measure would tighten California data privacy law," September 24, 2019
  4. ↑ San Francisco Chronicle, "Consumer online privacy measure could be headed for California ballot," September 24, 2019
  5. ↑ CalMatters, "Californians may get to vote on expanded privacy rights," September 24, 2019
  6. ↑ Wired, "The Fight Over the Fight Over California’s Privacy Future," September 21, 2020
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 California Secretary of State, "Ballot Title and Summary," accessed July 28, 2020
  8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
  9. ↑ Californians for Consumer Privacy, "Homepage," accessed May 5, 2020
  10. ↑ California Secretary of State, "Official Voter Information Guide," accessed September 28, 2020
  11. ↑ No on Prop 24, "Home," accessed August 4, 2020
  12. ↑ California Secretary of State, "Official Voter Information Guide," accessed September 28, 2020
  13. ↑ Electronic Frontier Foundation, "Why EFF Doesn’t Support California Proposition 24," July 29, 2020
  14. ↑ 14.0 14.1 14.2 14.3 14.4 14.5 14.6 14.7 Cal-Access, "Campaign Finance," accessed May 5, 2020
  15. ↑ California State Legislature, "California Constitution," accessed July 1, 2020
  16. ↑ California Secretary of State, "1879 Constitution," accessed July 1, 2020
  17. ↑ 17.0 17.1 17.2 17.3 17.4 17.5 California State Legislature, "AB-375," accessed June 25, 2018
  18. ↑ California Secretary of State, "Proponent Letter of 25% of Signatures Reached," February 13, 2020
  19. ↑ Californians for Consumer Privacy, "Californians for Consumer Privacy Submits Signatures to Qualify the California Privacy Rights Act for November 2020 Ballot," May 4, 2020
  20. ↑ MediaPost, "California Privacy Advocates Seek Court's Help With Ballot Initiative," June 10, 2020
  21. ↑ California Secretary of State, "Court Order," June 19, 2020
  22. ↑ California Secretary of State, "Final Random Sample," June 24, 2020
  23. ↑ California Secretary of State, "Section 3: Polling Place Hours," accessed April 4, 2023
  24. ↑ California Secretary of State, "Voter Registration," accessed April 4, 2023
  25. ↑ The Los Angeles Times, "Gov. Brown approves automatic voter registration for Californians," October 10, 2015
  26. ↑ The Sacramento Bee, "California voter law could register millions–for a start," October 20, 2015
  27. ↑ 27.0 27.1 California Secretary of State, "Registering to Vote," accessed April 4, 2023
  28. ↑ California Secretary of State, "What to Bring to Your Polling Place," accessed April 4, 2023
  29. ↑ BARCLAYS OFFICIAL CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS, "Section 20107," accessed April 4, 2023
v • e
2020 ballot measures
I&R States
 • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Florida • Idaho • Illinois • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Mexico • North Dakota • Oklahoma • Oregon • South Dakota • Utah • Washington • Wyoming
Non I&R States
 • Alabama • Georgia • Iowa • Kentucky • Louisiana • New Jersey • Rhode Island • Virginia • Wisconsin
Political topics
Other
Flag of California
v • e
State of California
Sacramento (capital)
Elections

What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2024 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures

Government

Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy

Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=California_Proposition_24,_Consumer_Personal_Information_Law_and_Agency_Initiative_(2020)&oldid=8872905"